Dreamforce Official Livestream... Shut Down By 'Content' Bots

from the and-here-we-go-again dept

This is becoming a regular thing. While some insist that copyright isn't limiting free speech, there has recently been a string of situations involving official livestreams being taken down due to copyright bots. There was the Hugo Awards livestream and the DNC livestream... and now it appears that Salesforce's big event, Dreamforce, is having the same issue. Brian Walsh sent over the following image as he tried to watch the official live stream:

Yup. That's the official stream (via Facebook), blocked due to "content restrictions." Guilty until proven innocent... and by then it's too late.

Reader Comments

Easy to tell legit?

Hey I thought it was "obvious" as to which streams were legit and which ones weren't. That was what they said when they expected search engines to magically know and block not-legit content. I guess it's not quite so easy.

Re: Easy to tell legit?

Dear Sir/Madam/Horse,

While I understand your concern about the removal of the video/image/blog in question, you have to understand that the piece is infringing/illegal/counterfeit which helps pirates/counterfeiters/child pornographers steal billions of dollars from american music/movie/car/corn industries, with devastating losses to music/movies/cars/popcorn. Please, think about the children/Americans/victims. We cannot let the terrorists/Chinese/pirates/horses win.

Re: Easy to tell legit?

"Hey I thought it was "obvious" as to which streams were legit and which ones weren't. That was what they said when they expected search engines to magically know and block not-legit content. I guess it's not quite so easy."

Yup - and nobody here seems to consider that perhaps, maybe, the people sending the feed only wanted to show it in certain countries.

Fast to claim blocking, short on real info. Keep going, you will be a Techdirt staff member in no time!

Re: Re: Re: Re: Easy to tell legit?

I understood your suggestion just fine. Your snarky tone suggests you'd be quite all right if geoblocking were the reason for this, which would lump you in with others who don't realise how stupid and counter-productive it is.

Perhaps if you were a little less rude people wouldn't assume the worst about you.

I think the content bots still need some more work. They seem to be slowly working in the right direction, but there is still some media left online. That means there is still work to be done. Eventually they'll get to the point where all online media is blocked, then we at the MPAA/RIAA can rejoice!

Hmm

Maybe they should do a dry run where they start streaming a day or two early, so if(WHEN) the bot blocks it, the feed can be restored in time for the real event.

This form of damage mitigation isn't a substitute for fixing the problem, but would do two things: highlight the obsurdity of the system in the first place, and get feeds restored in time for their actual airing, so people can watch.

I wonder how long it will be before the lawyers start jumping to the other side... If things continue down this path, a lot of lawyers will be out of jobs since there won't be any online infringement to shake down. So it's in their best interest to stop the automated take-down bots. Which would actually be funny, since they'd be trying to protect their business model... =P

This is becoming a regular thing. While some insist that copyright isn't limiting free speech, there has recently been a string of situations involving official livestreams being taken down due to copyright bots. There was the Hugo Awards livestream and the DNC livestream... and now it appears that Salesforce's big event, Dreamforce, is having the same issue.

Mosso ff hasn't claimed otherwise. What he has claimed is that copyright "is not a violation of the right to free speech." So you are purposefully misrepresenting what he said. As is your typical pattern, you state a lie in one article, and then in another article you link back to the first lie and build another lie on top. And then all you have are lies built on lies.

So please explain to me how this article shows copyright actually violating someone's free speech rights. You can't (hence the need to lie).

Re:

Re: Re:

Well Mike did link back to the Mossoff story, so maybe not the wrong article.

However, AJ, just how do you justify taking down a live event? The ones that have been reported here previously have all had cleared in advance IP involved. There is no mention of outside IP in this stream, and I have a hard time believing there was.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Well, legit speech was blocked so eh... Not that you'll ever see or accept the fact that it is a violation. I wonder how you'd feel if you were the producer of the show and got the stream taken down because of some over aggressive copyright bot. I guess you'd be alright since the law is the law. Law!

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Legitimate speech being blocked by a DMCA takedown notice does not equate to a violation of someone's First Amendment rights. The First Amendment doesn't guarantee anyone the right to post on YouTube. And the government was not involved in the takedown. It's private action on a private website.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Legitimate speech being blocked by a DMCA takedown notice does not equate to a violation of someone's First Amendment rights.

You're right, except the truth is the exact opposite of that. Legitimate speech being blocked by a DMCA takedown, illegitimate or otherwise is a violation of that entity's free speech rights. Speech is communication. Audio, video, it is all communication. Cases like these are just exploiting the loophole in the DMCA which allows for consequence-less illegitimate takedown notices to be filed and served.

It's private action on a private website.

And that's the problem which really lies at the heart of the matter. Internet takedowns should really take place in court. It's the only way to make sure this gets handled fairly. Currently, as Mike repeatedly asserts, the law operates on a 'guilty until proven innocent' basis, which as you know is contrary to the entirety of American law.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

I think that's a narrow view. The DMCA takedown notice states "that the information in the notification is accurate, and under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed." 17 U.S.C. 512(c)(3)(A). And one who misrepresents things in the notice can be liable under 512(f).

The recipient service provider relies on the notice to know whether they should take down the material. If they don't, they are potentially liable thereafter as a contributory or vicarious infringer. The notice requirements mean that a service provider doesn't have to second-guess about whether it's liable for content on its service.

The notice and takedown system is a compromise. It gives service providers certainty in their legal exposure for operating systems that are used to infringe. And it gives copyright owners a way to get infringements taken down.

Most of the time, a person who uploaded infringing content faces no liability. The takedown notice takes the content down, and the copyright owner doesn't then go after them. So the system actually keeps a lot of infringers out of hot water.

It's not perfect, but it's a good balancing. If you only look at one aspect of it, as Mike usually does with these sorts of things, then you're missing the bigger picture.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

That's the loophole right there. The only qualifier for the penalty of perjury is that the complainant is "authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed."

Beyond that, there's no liability. So the end result is rights holders are allowed to hire third parties to spam out DMCA notices and not face repercussions and hosting companies are pressured into using shitty filtering. So now we have DMCA notices flying fast and furious, and we're seeing real consequences.

How can it be that we have so many obviously false positives? Clearly there is something wrong with the process.

There's really no denying that this was an illegitimate takedown; more of a glaring example of a broken system. Balance? I think I just broke a rib from laughing.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

I suspect that you're missing the point by a narrow margin: sure, there are "legitimate takedowns. What quite a few of us are arguing is that the system itself is flawed, and this is an example of the way the system is flawed.

If there is a consistent flaw being exploited, would you not agree that the flaw should be corrected, rather than continuing to antagtonise people, possibly to the point of ignoring the law?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

He's not missing the point. I"ll replicate the comment yet again:

in response to below-average joe-

when the position is one you agree with, no facts are even necessary...
when the position is in opposition to yours, NO AMOUNT of facts will convince you otherwise...
*THAT* is the pattern you demonstrate...

Re: Re: Re: Re:

in response to below-average joe-

when the position is one you agree with, no facts are even necessary...
when the position is in opposition to yours, NO AMOUNT of facts will convince you otherwise...
*THAT* is the pattern you demonstrate...

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Tee-hee.

Actually, you need to replace "below average joe" with whatever you name is. Actually you could put Mike's name there too.

Don't you understand how Techdirt works? Mike narrowly selects stories that support his point of view, while pointedly ignore those that don't. When those are brought up, he ignores the story and insults the poster instead.

As an example, there was a good story this past weekend on Wired, an interview with William Gibson (look him up if you need to). He basically says that perhaps all this instant infinite distribution is in fact hurting musical trends, because they become worldwide instantly (think Psy). As he says, the old system of things getting dragged around and introduced to people in intimate settings (friends show friends, etc) maybe made for a "richer sauce". Instead, today we seem to be doomed to nothing more than a series of flash fads, meme jokes, and wash, rinse, repeat.

Mike doesn't like to look at stories like that, because it is clearly someone with experience, with knowledge, and with intelligence raising the issues of the negative implications of all that goes on. He questions if this in the end will produce more and better music, or just more. In simple terms, the "just more" doesn't appear to advance the arts, which in turn makes it a good argument why destroying copyright to allow flash fad musical knock offs may not be a good thing.

So see, when you come to Techdirt, Mike has careful removed almost all of the negative thoughts, almost all of the non-conforming data points, and has carefully hidden the implications of what he supports.

If the only facts you see support your point of view, then you will always think he is right.

It's also a feedback loop. Mike tends to toss the occasional questionable story out there, and waits to see the reaction. If you guys are all over it saying "hell yeah" then it often becomes part of the deal. If you guys get even slightly negative on it, it goes away and never comes back. Filtered facts, making for a perfect universe. It's so strong that you guys go off on anyone who dares to post an opposing view.

I despise people who hide the truth.
I despise people who think it is okay.
They usually hide it behind cries for free speech.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

I may be a tad off base here but, ah, isn't the trend of music now mostly dependent upon those that listen to it? Listen to whatever they want? Whenever? Wherever?

Despising people that hide the truth? You sure despise a lot of people do you not? A healthy dose of self-loathing to boot?

Perhaps, if you will perchance give it a moments thought, you should consider why one guy's thoughts on music trends should matter, even a little, with regard to the current state of this mess?

Quite simply, as a commenter, you can link to this mind blowing insight from some guy all you like and let the interest ensue. Not entirely unlike this: This guy had interesting things to say. What say you?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

"I may be a tad off base here but, ah, isn't the trend of music now mostly dependent upon those that listen to it? Listen to whatever they want? Whenever? Wherever?"

Actually, he was comment on the fact that your exact line of logic shows a weird trend towards things burning out quickly, being almost a meme rather than a trend, flash and gone.

It's rather like coffee - freeze dried stuff is fast and instant, but tasteless and horrible. Real coffee takes time to brew and is delicious. His concern is that perhaps the internet and instant communication and worldwide overnight flash trends are turning music into freeze dried instant crap. Some things take time to brew, the internet gives no time to brew.

IMHO, that is why you have things like Psy, Chocolate Rain, Fridays, and junk like that, because it's more flash trend than anything real. It's amusing for a second, forgotten in a few moments by most.

"Quite simply, as a commenter, you can link to this mind blowing insight from some guy all you like and let the interest ensue. Not entirely unlike this: This guy had interesting things to say. What say you?"

He had plenty of things to say, none of them relevant to the discussion at hand. if you go onto PoetDirt.com or Ancientcrap.com, you might be more in place.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

I'm replicating a comment that makes sense if applied to you:

in response to below-average joe-

when the position is one you agree with, no facts are even necessary...
when the position is in opposition to yours, NO AMOUNT of facts will convince you otherwise...
*THAT* is the pattern you demonstrate...

Re: Re: Re: Re:

A limitation on someone's ability to speak freely is not the same thing as a violation of their First Amendment rights. For example, if Mike were to block your IP address and not let you post on Techdirt, that's his right to do since it's his website. Your ability to speak freely on Techdirt is taken away, but your First Amendment rights have not been implicated. Now, if the government takes over Mike's servers and deletes all of your posts and blocks you from posting for no reason, then you'd have a First Amendment violation.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

A limitation on someone's ability to speak freely is not the same thing as a violation of their First Amendment rights. For example, if Mike were to block your IP address and not let you post on Techdirt, that's his right to do since it's his website. Your ability to speak freely on Techdirt is taken away, but your First Amendment rights have not been implicated.

I agree that if Mike chooses to block someone of his own free will, without undue pressure being applied by the government, that is not a violation of free speech.

But that isn't what happened here or in other DMCA takedowns or automated content bots mishaps.

Do you think that Google/Youtube/Facebook or other sites wanted to takedown the legal content? Of course they didn't. They were compelled to take it down or implement the bots under threat of liability from a third party holding a copyright.

The government is involved here in two ways:
1) The DMCA is a law that lays out specific steps for a service provider to avoid liability from what the users of their service use it for (something no one with a bit of common sense would think they were liable for in the first place), and those steps say to take the content down first - before it is determined to be infringing.

2) Copyright is a government granted monopoly over an expression.

If the government gets to hand out monopolies over expressions, there is a duty to insure that those monopolies are not being used to censor protected speech - and writing a law to encourage them to be used to do so (often by unwilling parties) is not the right way to do it.

Re:

What a dick!! Mosso conveniently states the literal because he knows the constitution doesn't allow for the first amendment to be stepped on.....if you weren't such a douche-bag you could actually understand that his "literal" interpretation doesn't fit with reality....the point that was being made. Although copyright doesn't impinge on free speech or imply censorship, our inability to police it does. THAT WAS THE POINT. The unintended consequences of copyright maximalism is to censor free speech when the maximalists block the wrong content by mistake.

Re: Re: Re:

No they're not. "Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law". The robber is still able to speak, but is warned that what he says will be used in court.

Here...there is no court, just the silencing of the individual(s). They're not told they can continue to speak and possibly infringe and that what they say will be used in the court-room...they're just silenced outright.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

To be honest it can be confronted (a DMCA takedown) but till it is a lot of damage has already been done. Also, the robbery example wasn't good (as usual for AJ examples). The mechanics are different and copyright infringement is not a criminal offense..

Re:

Oh I don't know...how about NOT BEING ABLE TO SPEAK? Copyright here is being invoked to judge and punish a person or persons, and stripping them of their ability to speak - the punishment is being applied before they have any chance of protesting or showing their side of the argument in a court of law.
Alright, Mike may or may not have misquoted Mossoff in the previous article - this article focuses AGAIN on how bots are preventing people from speaking, having invoked that authority from the government, a power that conflicts with free speech rights.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re:

Here is the only lie that you should probably contend with: The current state and effects of copyright are not broken and are completely in-line with the First Amendment.

Your intent on conflating semantic bullshit with the actual issues is old, pathetic and not helping in the least to correct the issue that copyright, in its present state, is much more harmful than helpful to all those with any interest whatsoever up to and inclusive of those that currently benefit the most - large media conglomerates.

Re: Re:

Here is the only lie that you should probably contend with: The current state and effects of copyright are not broken and are completely in-line with the First Amendment.

Your intent on conflating semantic bullshit with the actual issues is old, pathetic and not helping in the least to correct the issue that copyright, in its present state, is much more harmful than helpful to all those with any interest whatsoever up to and inclusive of those that currently benefit the most - large media conglomerates.

Do you actually have a specific, concrete argument, or is it just generalizations?

Re: Re: Re:

Other than that which I've already mentioned in that you're enamored with semantic bullshit? No, not really, no. I am a generalist maximalist I guess. The point was sharp when it pierced my flesh but the blade was dull and as such you're killing me but not nearly as effectively as you could have.

My argument... is thus: To what do you claim as right? Were I to be wronged by your right then to whom do I sow my disdain? For with you it is that I must sow the seeds for a remorseful bounty such that you may reap what becomes you. Abject hilarity and a conspicuous slight to those whom are affected by your concepts of right.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re:

"Here is the only lie that you should probably contend with: The current state and effects of copyright are not broken and are completely in-line with the First Amendment."

Mike's idol Lessig took these arguments for a walk, and the entire justice system laughed at him. I think it was a 9 nothing defeat, or something along those lines. It was insane. Mike doesn't talk much about 1st amendment issues and copyright anymore, because for the most part, he knows it's already a dead subject.

He seems to bring it back every so often in case you have forgotten about it, so he can drive some more page views from ranters like you.

Re: Re: Re:

Sadly the US Govt has stopped pretending they respect the Constitution. However...

Mike doesn't talk much about 1st amendment issues and copyright anymore, because for the most part, he knows it's already a dead subject.

I suggest you browse techdirt for the last few weeks and you'll see it's pretty much a live and hot subject. And those articles usually get a lot of attention and comments. And he's not the only one questioning. If by any chance you just arrived from Mars you should also check the protests around the world. 15M in Spain, Egypt, Occupy Wall Street and its offsprings all over the world, protests against SOPA/PIPA/ACTA and recently TPP, the real estate protests in Israel, protests in Portugal against not the Government but the system itself...

Must be nice to be out of touch in the end, what the eyes don't (or refuse to) see the heart doesn't feel, right?

Re:

Several innocents sued despite file sharing being widespread (PRINTERS!!!), blogs censored for months without due process, official streams that are nowhere niche or not famous being censored by abusive bots... How much evidence we'll need before the Govt stops and says "well, it seems we need to review copyright law".